Our strongest arguments...
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Sep 2005 22:31:05
Thinking about it from an emotive viewpoint, and from the viewpoint of what is most likely to be effective, we need to look at what general arguments we have that can be made against this legislation (I think I rehearsed all of them in my letter to the Consultation, which I posted on my IC blog).
1/. Consent of the participants in making the material.
Not a strong argument, because of the current interpretation of the law on GBH (based on the precedent of the Spanner trial), but one that can be used by reference to a) the acts are legal in the countries where the material is created, b) that the Spanner precedent is case law and can be overturned by another test case, and that consent between adults is now a matter in the considerations of court judges in deciding whether or not to hear a case, indicating that there is a general move towards liberalisation and public acceptance of BDSM.
2/. That this is an attempt not to legislate against deeds but against thoughts, and in particular certain types of sexual fantasies.
This is a much stronger argument in my opinion, and is less specific than the one above: it is much easier to use this to draw in general civil rights campaign groups and the like, as it is a direct appeal against censorship. Because it appeals not to articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (with which the authors of the consultatin paper are satisfied they have complied), but to article 9, it has a stronger chance if the case should ever go that far.
It appeals again to the idea that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, is their own business and not the concern of the law. However, it also manages to convey the image of the government poking its nose into people's private affairs. This gives it a much more emotive element that, if it is used intelligently, could be very effective.
There are I am sure other weapons we can use (the fact that illustrations would not be outlawed is a useful one, but only if we can use it in such a way as to prevent them making the proposals even *more* draconian!)
There is a clear need for two different strategies, one when it comes to individuals writing to the consultation (II am happy to let the organisations devise their own submissions and policies) and one when t comes to dealing with the media. I've done all I can on the former, on the latter I am less good.
However, we must not end up spewing out loads of spurious suggestions about what it means, in the belief that if we throw enough shit some of it will stick; I have seen campaigns do that and they end up looking stupid because the valuable arguments get masked in the rubbish and it makes it easy for the government to dismiss the campaign as irrelevant, childish and ill-informed.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
fuschia, 03 Sep 2005 22:41:08
In a message dated 03/09/2005 22:31:21 GMT Daylight Time,
snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com writes:
2/. That this is an attempt not to legislate against deeds but against
thoughts, and in particular certain types of sexual fantasies.
Can you coin opposition to that in a phrase?
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Sep 2005 22:49:14
--- Fusch1af@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 03/09/2005 22:31:21 GMT Daylight
> Time,
> snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com writes:
>
> 2/. That this is an attempt not to legislate
> against deeds but against
> thoughts, and in particular certain types of sexual
> fantasies.
>
>
> Can you coin opposition to that in a phrase?
I did, and everybody laughed and moved on:
"Freedom of Fantasy Society - 'FFS' " I said.
Also, this is a positive statement, it says we are
*for* freedom of sexual fantasy (which probably
requires the caveat that those fantasies not include
children/animals). Perhaps "Freedom of Adult
Fantasy" would be better?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 03 Sep 2005 23:35:04
Hi everyone!
Pardon me if I'm catching up a bit, but I had a little problem with
posting privileges...!
Anyway, I've just read through the government's plans and, as usual,
there's the usual collection of half-truths, implications not backed
with facts and loaded questions designed to get answers that can be used
to back up the proposals.
Consider, for instance:
"Q. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible
negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material
which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?"
A lovely little loaded question, what it's really saying is that "we
know there's no proof, but we want you to agree that there's some stuff
so horrible that nobody should be allowed to see it, we'll then parlay
that into an agreement that, even though there's no proof, we're doing
the right thing"!
Or how about:
"Q. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of
such material?"
Again, loaded and also the wrong question to ask. It should be "Is there
any justification for *preventing* the possession of such material?"
And what of:
"Q. Which option do you prefer?"
Well, this is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the False
Dilemma, presenting options as if they are the *only* ones available
when what they have actually done is presented three suggestions (based
on their own previous examples) and a fourth one of "do nothing",
carefully ignoring the fact that there *are* other possibilities.
Finally the entire document is shot through with references to child
porn which are, again, attempts to load the dice.
Frankly, of course, given previous "consultation documents" I shouldn't
be surprised by any of this!
IMO one of our best options is to keep bringing up the point that this
sort of material is a *symptom* not a cause, just as viewing child porn
or any other such stuff does not *make* someone want to go out and abuse
children, they must have had that inclination present already, it's not
as if someone saw it and went "wow, that's a great idea, I must do that"!
The claims by Graham Coutts that the porn "made him do it" strike me as
nothing more than using it as a convenient scape goat for exculpation
(since it was better than saying something like "I enjoyed it and she
was asking for it") and should be dimissed as the nonsense they are.
Once again it seems our Nanny State and Thought Police want to control
what we can or cannot see or read and whittle away our basic rights and
freedoms because "it's for your own good" (as the vet said to the tom cat!)
I'm already composing a letter to my MP and I strongly suggest that
everyone else does too.
You can find your MP's contact details at http://www.writetothem.com/
Let's all work on this and maybe we can beat it before they beat us!
Cheers,
Graham.
stripey, 03 Sep 2005 23:58:05
In message
<7658652.1125783062518.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com writes
>This is a much stronger argument in my opinion, and is less specific
>than the one above: it is much easier to use this to draw in general
>civil rights campaign groups and the like, as it is a direct appeal
>against censorship. Because it appeals not to articles 8 and 10 of the
>European Convention on Human Rights (with which the authors of the
>consultatin paper are satisfied they have complied), but to article 9,
>it has a stronger chance if the case should ever go that far.
That's just reminded me that I know a human rights law expert based in
Brussels. I've just emailed her about this and will let the group now
when I get a response.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Alex_Birch, 04 Sep 2005 11:20:41
Author wrote:
> Anyway, I've just read through the government's plans and, as usual,
> there's the usual collection of half-truths, implications not backed
> with facts and loaded questions designed to get answers that can be used
> to back up the proposals.
> Consider, for instance:
> "Q. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible
> negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material
> which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?"
This was my stance Graham and you have picked up on the same weaknesses. The questions are framed like an EC referendum 'Do you really think we should stay in Europe or be isolated economically?' etc etc. The questions are driven in such a way they are difficult to argue with. One of the tactics has to be to reverse the emphasis to that of civil liberties and inteference in our personal freedoms. There really is mileage in that if we can get some support from the media.
The document admits that the UK govt cannot guarantee support from its European partners to frame an international agreement so by implication we are more worthy of repression than the French, Germans etc. They also admit that they cannot tie in the objectionable material with linked sex crimes.
There really is so much to go at IF a concerted campaign can hit the freedom argument successfully and get past the 'protecting public morals' nannying which always, as thr Americans say 'plays well in Peoria'
Alex